Catastrophic climate alarmism is based upon the assumption that water vapor feedback is positive and amplifies a small warming from CO2 by a factor of 3-5 times to produce a climate catastrophe. If, as this paper and several others find, water vapor feedback is instead negative, the climate sensitivity or warming from increased CO2 after feedbacks drops to insignificant, negligible levels and the climate catastrophe would effectively be called off.
According to Dr. Caldiera's paper,
Increased latent heat flux to the atmosphere has a local cooling influence known as 'evaporative cooling', but this energy will be released back to the atmosphere wherever the water condenses [added: which is usually in the upper troposphere]. However, the extent to which local evaporative cooling provides a global cooling influence has not been well characterized.
We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.The IPCC alleges 1 Wm-2 increase in radiative forcing causes a 3C/3.7 Wm-2 or .81C increase in surface temperature, but if evaporative cooling from water vapor offsets this by 66% or 0.54C according to Dr. Caliera's paper, only a 0.27C residual warming would remain. Therefore, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels after evaporative cooling from water vapor would only be ~.33*3C = 1C, i.e. not of concern and likely beneficial.
Tweet today from Dr. Caldeira in reply to another climate scientist (who just published a paper claiming evaporation of water causes global warming) notes that "evaporation of water causes global cooling in the NCAR [the US National Center for Atmospheric Research] atmospheric model, not warming"
.@mzjacobson Evaporation of water causes global cooling in the NCAR atmospheric model, not warming. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034032/ … @mike_cal
11:46 AM - 2 Aug 2014
Environmental Research Letters Volume 6 Number 3
George A Ban-Weiss et al 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 034032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034032
Climate forcing and response to idealized changes in surface latent and sensible heat
FEATURED ARTICLE
George A Ban-Weiss1,3, Govindasamy Bala2, Long Cao1, Julia Pongratz1 and Ken Caldeira1
Show affiliations
Land use and land cover changes affect the partitioning of latent and sensible heat, which impacts the broader climate system. Increased latent heat flux to the atmosphere has a local cooling influence known as 'evaporative cooling', but this energy will be released back to the atmosphere wherever the water condenses. However, the extent to which local evaporative cooling provides a global cooling influence has not been well characterized. Here, we perform a highly idealized set of climate model simulations aimed at understanding the effects that changes in the balance between surface sensible and latent heating have on the global climate system. We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.
Yep.
ReplyDeleteEvaporative air-conditioners have been in use in some form or other for hundreds of years.
Amazing that this is still a subject of debate among the "97% consensus"
DeleteEven more amazing that, even when the paper states up front that evaporative cooling is a LOCAL effect, the discussion immediately passes to speculation on a GLOBAL effect, using of course a model of doubtful physical validity (who says you can make the global changes they specify in their modelling?). My real Venus/Earth temperatures comparison already shows there is no global effect due to differences (or changes, within one planet's atmosphere) in albedo, clouds, atmospheric composition (such as in CO2 or water vapor) or surface. Much of the incompetence in climate science involves this continued refusal to learn all of the imagined "forcings" involve local, transient WEATHER, not global mean surface temperature at all. Pursuing speculations (a.k.a. "climate" models) that don't obey this fundamental distinction, this fact of real atmospheres, is simply useless, and will never get anyone anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAgree that pressure governs the temperature profile of the troposphere, emergent thermodynamics governs the weather, and the weather/climate could care less about "radiative imbalance" at the top of the atmosphere
Delete